1. INTRODUCTION
Increasing the use of private vehicles
in urban areas in developing countries has been increased to environmental
problems such as congestion and air pollution. Similar to Jakarta area which is
as the center of government and business with a population of 10.08 million
people, Jakarta has a high level of traffic problems. Population movement
occurs so quite busy, both within the Jakarta area, which entered Jakarta, as
well as out of Jakarta
According
to Polda Metro Jaya Ditlantas more than 17 million vehicles are distributed in
Jakarta in 2014 year. Based on data of Department of Transportation Jakarta,
every year the total number of vehicles in Jakarta is increased until 9%. Every
day there are about 1235 motorcycles and 835 new cars come to the street.
Unfortunately, the number of additional vehicles is not balanced with the
additional of roadways that only 0.1% increasing from the total of of 48,502,763.16
m2 road area in 2014.
Overcoming these problems, the government as a regulator has implemented several policies, such as implementation high tax of personal vehicle progressively for the owners who has car more than one, and so on. Besides, the government also provides massive transportation modes as alternative transportation. Currently, in Jakarta Transjakarta busway is available as one of public transportation choice. But, only few people are interested using Transjakarta. Most people of DKI Jakarta prefer to use private vehicles then using public transportation. Using private vehicles is considered more practic and flexible and for security reasons also as the cause of the lack of public intention to choose public transportation. Beside that, most of users believe that using their own vehicle feels more comfortable.However, increasing private vehicle usage causes many problems such as congestion, air pollution, lack of energy resources, and so on. This fact is very contrary with the values of moral responsibility and the principles of each individual. Abrahamse et al. (2009) in his research explained that personal norms are factors that affect the intention to reduce car use. Doran and Larsen (2016) in his research indicated that personal norms are the strongest factor related to behavioural intention in choosing environmentally friendly modes of transportation. Social factor can influence someone to select transportation mode. Each individual has different social environment level. Ng and Phuong (2015) explained that social influence is an important determinant of the public's intention in using public transportation.
Lack of public awareness to environmental impacts is also suspected to be a factor in the lack of public intention in using Transjakarta. Whereas Ernst (2005) explained that in the first month of Transjakarta operation, circulation of transportation modes from cars and motorcycles to Transjakarta buses in corridor I. It has reduced of NOx emissions level with value 212 kg / day and particles with aerodynamic diameters less than 10 lm (PM10) with 31 kg / day. The quality impression experienced by consumers when using public transportation is also an important indicator of the behavioral intention of its users. The profit of the usage of Transjakarta is a comparison between the costs issued with perceived quality. Jen et al. (2010) argueded that perceived value is the most important indicator of intention behavior of public transport users. It can be said so because perceived costs affect the intention behavior of public transport users through perceived value of the mode of transportation. Similar to perceived costs, perceived quality is an important indicator in relation to the intention behavior of public transport.
Anything that related to issues of
congestion, environmental pollution, inefficiency, and exploitation of the
environment can be reduced if private vehicle users are willing to switch to
public transportation mode. There is important research that examines the factors
that affect the intention to use public transport, especially Transjakarta as
the variables described above. For those reason, it is necessary to learn all
the factors that influences, such as:
personal norms, social influence, environmental impact, and perceived
quality of public transport on the intention of using Transjakarta
simultaneously. Examining the kind factors influence to the public intention of
private vehicle users for using public transportation significantly. The model
based on a conceptual framework is used as a basis in analyzing the
relationship between variable that related with intention in using public
transportation.
2.
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Intention to use
behavior
Consumer behavior is a consumer action in consuming
goods, by spending a certain cost and get certain benefits from goods that
consumption in such way that consumers achieve their goals. Peter and Olson
(2010), states that the American Marketing Association defines consumer
behavior as a dynamic interaction of feelings, cognitions, behaviors, and the
environment in which individuals exchange in various aspects of their lives.
Hawkins and Mothersbaugh (2013), states that consumer behavior is the study of
how individuals, groups, and organizations process to choose, secure, use and
discontinue products, services, experiences or ideas to satisfy their needs and
impact on consumers and society.
Related to the definition described, there are several
theories related to the consumer behavior. In this research, consumer behavior
focuses on the behavior of transportation mode usage. To understand why
commuters are choosing to drive in private vehicles instead of using
eco-friendly public transport modes, it is necessary to observe at their
behavior in choosing modes of transportation and their intention to use public
transportation. Two approaches that often used to explain the pro-environment
behavior are Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and The Norm-Activation Model
(NAM) (BONNES; BONAIUTO, 2002). TPB proposed by Ajzen (1985) considers that
pro-environment is the result of an individual cost-benefit analysis. While NAM
assumes that moral considerations are based on pro-environment behavior.
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an extension of
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). In TRA it is explained that one's intention
toward behavior is formed by two main factors: attitude toward behavior and
subjective norms (FISHBEIN; AJZEN, 1975), whereas in TPB is added one more
factor that perceived behavioral control (AJZEN, 1991). There are 3 independent
variables in TPB namely attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control. Attitude is factor in a person learned to give a positive or negative
response to an assessment of something given. Subjective norm (subjective norm)
is a person's perception about the thoughts of others who will support or not
support him in doing something. Perceived behavioral control is the perception
of ease or difficulty in performing a behavior.
Figure
1: Theory of planned behaviour model (Ajzen
1991)
Schwartz (1977) originally developed NAM in the context
of altruistic behavior in which personal norms form the core of this model.
Schwartz (1977) states that these norms are actively experienced as a feeling
of moral obligation rather than intention. These personal norms are used in NAM
to predict individual behavior. The model states that these personal norms are
determined by two factors: the realization that doing or not doing certain
behaviors has certain consequences, and a sense of responsibility for
performing specific behaviors (SCHWARTZ,1977).
Most studies interpret NAM as a model of mediator or
moderation model. The mediator model shows that awareness of the consequences
affects personal norms through ascribed responsibility. Moderation models show
that the effect of personal norms on behavior is moderated by consciousness of
consequences and ascribed responsibility. De Groot and Steg (2009) recently
compared these two interpretations in five studies and provide strong evidence
that NAM is a mediator model.
Figure
2: Norm-activation model (Schwartz 1977)
Their findings indicate that one should be aware of the
consequences of behavior before feeling responsible for it. Furthermore, De
Groot and Steg (2009) say the feeling of responsibility activate personal
norms, and personal norms causing individual behavior.
2.2.
Relationship
between personal norms and intention to use public transport
According to Harland et al. (2007) moral theory considers
that pro-environment behavior as an option of moral situations when an
individual's actions have consequences for the welfare of others. In contrast
to rational choice theories, moral theory shows that pro-social behavior or
pro-environmental behavior, influenced by feelings of moral obligation or
personal norms. According to the norm-activation model the intensity of
personal obligation occurs when a person feels to take behavioral actions that
affect the environment (SCHWARTZ, 1977).
Pro-environmental
behavior can be considered as a form of altruistic behavior, because it
requires the sacrifice from personal benefits for the sake of the environment.
For example, in order to reduce the environmental problems caused by the use of
private vehicles, we decided to go to work on the bus, which reduces some
comforts because we must walking more to reach bus shelter, less freedom (less
choice when to get home and working, to fit bus schedules) , and may take
longer travel time.
Fujii
and Van (2009) on the results of his research indicate that moral concerns are
the determinants of behavioral intention to use the bus. Sumaedi and Yarmen
(2015) conducted a study about the effect of moral norm on the intention to use
public transport in Bogor, Indonesia. The study used a quantitative method with
a survey of 277 respondents.
The
results of this study show that positive norm morality significantly influences
the behavioral intention of public transport users. Zhang et al. (2015)
conducted a study in Shanghai on social norms in the use of public transport.
The results found that subjective social norms and internalized responsibility
in using more environmentally friendly modes of transport stimulate intention
to use public transport and increase the actual number of public transport
users.
Based
on the theory of norm-activation model (NAM) and findings of some previous
research, it is seen that there is a close relationship between personal norms
and intention to use public transport. So this study also examines the
influence of personal norms variable with the intention of private vehicle
owners to use Transjakarta. Thus Hypothesis 1 in this research:
H1
: Personal norms affects intention to use
Transjakarta significantly.
2.3.
Relationship between social
influence and intention to use public transport
Social
factors are a group of people who consider about the equality in community
status or awards that constantly socialize among themselves both formally and
informally (KOTLER; ARMSTRONG, 2008). Rahmatsyah (2011) says that consumer
beliefs can be influenced by the information they receive from the social
environment. In theory of planned behavior (TPB), social influence is a subjective
norm which is a belief that arising from the impulse of the view or social
environmental assumptions. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) say that subjective norms
refer to the social pressure given to engage in certain behaviors.
In
this study, social influence variable refers to the encouragement of important
people such as family, friends, and colleagues to use Transjakarta. The higher social involvement, the higher impetus to use
Transjakarta. This may affect a person's intention in using Transjakarta.
There
are several previous studies that link social influence with intention to use
public transport. Ng and Phuong (2015) conducted research on the interest of
motorcycle users in Hanoi, Vietnam to use the bus. The study says that service
satisfaction, personal belief, and social influence have a significant impact
to the intention of road users to use public transportation. Research conducted
Setiawan (2012) says that most often mentioned relating normative belief
(normative belief) are parents, boyfriend, and friends.
Ambak
et al. (2016) conducted a study of behavioral intention in using public
transportation based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model in Batu
Pahat and Kluang, Malaysia. The results showed that attitude toward public
transport is the most dominant factor when compared with subjective norm and
perceived behavior control in influencing people to use bus. Most respondents
agree that the use of buses is cheap and there is no better alternative mode of
transportation.
Choocharukul
and Fujii (2007) conducted an investigative study of psychological factors that
could be a predictor of behavioral intention in the use of private vehicles for
future work trips. The results of this study found that subjective norm,
attitude, and moral obligation are significant determinants for behavioral
intention. Tung and Kubota (2015) conducted a study related to treveler
psychology motivation in choosing public transportation. The result of this
research show that social awareness influence bus use intention. Zailani et al.
(2016) found that social interaction associated with the use of buses did not
affect people's interest in using buses.
Based on the theory of planned behavior
(TPB) and two opposite research results from previous studies related to
intention to use public transport, this study tried to test the influence of
social influence variable with the intention of private vehicle owners to use
Transjakarta. Thus Hypothesis 2 in this research:
H2
: Social influence affects intention
to use Transjakarta significantly.
2.4.
Relationship between environment
impact and intention to use public transport
Environmental impact arising from the
use of motor vehicles can be felt with real. Motor vehicles produce CO2
emissions that contribute to global warming (OECD, 2002). The use of private
vehicles includes contributing to behavior that is not pro-environment. While
one solution to resolve the environmental impact is reduce the use of private
vehicles and switch to public transportation.
There are several studies that examine
the relationship of environmental impact with intention to use public
transport. Ng and Phuong (2015) in his research said that the world environment
impact and local environmental impact has no significant relationship to
consumer intention. Borhan et al. (2014) conducted research on the interest of
using public transportation in Putrajaya, Malaysia.
This study was conducted with the aim to
find out what factors affect the willingness of the public to use public
transportation rather than using private vehicles. The results of this study
indicate that service quality and attitude have a positive influence on the
behavioral intention of the use of public transportation. In addition, service
quality and environmental impact variables have a positive influence on
attitude, but environmental impact does not affect the intention to use public
transport.
The study by Osada et al. (2011) is about
things that affect trevel intention by using parameters trevelers' personality
and preference. Car preference and two types of personality, namely
environmental concern and frugal lifestyle are selected as important factors
that influence trevelers intention. The results of this study indicate that
high level of car preference causes trevelers to choose a fast and massive
trevel mode. Eco-friendly commuters have a high intention in eco-friendly modes
of transport. Conventional public transport is the mode that becomes an option
for commuters who have a higher frugal lifestyle.
The interest to refrain from using
private vehicles is higher on eco-friendly commuters and frugal lifestyle.
Personality and preference also affect the attitudes of commuters. Tung et al.
(2015) conducted research on treveler behavior with pro-environmental approach.
The results of this study indicate that there is no difference in mode-use
obligation between private vehicle users who have environmental concerns with
public transport users who have social and environmental concerns.
Haryanto and Purnomo (2016) conducted a
study investigating the effects of environmental knowledge as moderating
variables of re-use public transportation. The results show that trevel time
efficiency affects the satisfaction and service value. Furthermore,
satisfaction influences intention to re-use and environment knowledge moderates
the relationship between satisfaction and intention to re-use public
transportation.
Based on field facts from the
environmental impacts and previous research, this research tries to test the
influence of environment impact variable with the intention of private vehicle
owner to use Transjakarta. Thus Hypothesis 3 in this research:
H3 : Environment impact affects intention to use
Transjakarta significantly.
2.5.
Relationship
between perceived quality and intention to use public transport
The impression of perceived quality will
determine the assessment of the product. Zeithaml (1988) says that the
perceived value of a product is a trade-off between perceived benefit and
perceived cost. As with transport services, passengers will use a particular
transport service if passengers feel comfortable, secure, accessible, and so on
by comparing prices or sacrifices. There are several studies that examine the
perceived quality variables associated with intention to use public transport.
Sumaedi et al. (2012) in his research on
public transportation proves that perceived value and service quality
significantly influence the behavioral intention of passengers. The results
also show that perceived value is significantly influenced by service quality
and perceived sacrifice. The data used are taken from 339 passengers
paratransit by using questionnaire method. Fujii and Van (2009) in the results
of his research explain that quality perception influence behavioral intention
to use the bus.
Jen and Hu (2003) conducted repurchase
intention studies on public transport users. It is said that repurchase
intention is influenced by perceived value. Jen et al. (2010) also said in his
study that perceived value is the most important predictor of the satisfaction
and behavioral intention of public transport users. Sukwadi and Theophilus
(2015) conducted a study of Jabodetabek KRL users. The results show service quality
has a positive impact on perceived value. Perceived value and passenger
satisfaction have a positive impact on engagement. Service quality and
engagement have a positive impact on behavioral intention.
Based on the explanation, this research
tries to test the influence of perceived quality of public transport variable
with the intention of private vehicle owner to use Transjakarta. Thus
Hypothesis 4 in this research:
H4 : Perceived
quality of public transport affects intention
to use Transjakarta significantly.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1.
Research approach
This research was conducted by quantitative
descriptive method by using survey, which was done by questionnaire to get the
result factually, systematically, thoroughly, and accurately related to the
characteristics and facts that exist in the field of research object. Survey
approach is done by submitting a list of statements in the form of
questionnaires to the respondents. The data collected in this research was
conducted from March to May 2017 in Jabodetabek area.
Data
collection was done by giving questionnaire. Questionnaires were given in two
ways, online through google form and self-administered questionnaire printed to
the respondents as many as 250 people. Likert scale 5 points is used to measure
main variable.
3.2.
Research sampling
Determination of the sample is done by purposive sampling
that is intentional sampling in accordance with the sample criteria required in
this study. Criteria of respondents include:
a. Male / female with age> 16 years old.
b.
Have
a personal vehicle either motor or car.
c. Private vehicle users who have used
Transjakarta to get an idea of respondents' perceptions about the quality of
Transjakarta services.
Based
on Roscoe (1975) and Hair et al. (2005) the number of samples in SEM is
determined by the number of model coefficients to be expected, 5 - 10 times the number of coefficients. The
number of variables in this study are 5 variables derived into 27 items. So
based on the rules of thumb the number of samples to be used are between
135-270 samples.
3.3.
Research variables and
measurement method
In
this research there are two variable, exogenous latent variables and endogenous
latent variables. Latent variables used are based on concepts and studies from
some previous research. All constructing items are measured using Likert
indicating 5 points, 1 indicating strongly disagree, and 5 indicating strongly
agree. Explanation of the operational definition of each variable can be seen
in Table 1.
Table 1 : Definition and variable
measurement
|
Latent variables |
Description of latent variables |
Indicator variables |
References |
|
Intention to use Transjakarta (I) |
The stage of individual inclination to act before the
decision is actually implemented, in this case the intention in using
Transjakarta. |
Intention1 (Y1) |
Ng dan Phuong (2015), Fujii dan Van (2009), Sumaedi et al.
(2012). |
|
Intention2 (Y2) |
|||
|
Intention3 (Y3) |
|||
|
Personal
norms (PN) |
Individual beliefs, related to moral principles and
responsibility for the use of private vehicles. |
Guilty feeling (X1) |
Abrahamse
et al. (2014), Doran dan Larsen (2016) |
|
Responsibility (X2) |
|||
|
Personal principle (X3) |
|||
|
Social influence (SI) |
Things that affect consumers in choosing a product derived from
the social environment of the consumer. |
Support influence (X4) |
Ng dan Phuong (2015), Setiawan (2012). |
|
Social encouragement (X5) |
|||
|
Family influence (X6) |
|||
|
Coworker influence (X7) |
|||
|
Friend influence (X8) |
|||
|
Environment impact (EI) |
Negative impacts caused by the use of motor vehicles, which
cause environmental damage and environmental situations and roads are not
conducive. |
Noise pollution (X9) |
Ng dan Phuong (2015), Fujii dan Van (2009). |
|
Energy crisis (X10) |
|||
|
Air pollution (X11) |
|||
|
Road congestion (X12) |
|||
|
Social exclusion (X13) |
|||
|
Traffic safety (X14) |
|||
|
Perceived quality of Transjakarta (PQ) |
The impression of quality on a product received by consumers
after using a product, which can shape consumer perceptions of the product. |
Comfort (X15) |
Fujii dan Van (2009), Jen et.al. (2010), Borhan et. al. (2014) |
|
Accessibilty (X16) |
|||
|
Speed (X17) |
|||
|
Punctuality (X18) |
|||
|
Security (X19) |
|||
|
Money_cost (X20) |
|||
|
Courtesy (X21) |
|||
|
Route (X22) |
|||
|
Schedule (X23) |
|||
|
Convinience (X24) |
3.4.
Data analysis
The
model used in this study is predictive relationship modeling and Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM) technique is used to test the hypothesis using LISREL
8.72.software.
4. RESULT
AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
Demographics and respondents’
behavior
Factors
influencing consumer intention in using Transjakarta are the variables analyzed
as well as the objectives in this research, so to achieve these objectives in
addition to supported by some previous research, this study used the required respondents.
Demographics of respondents can be seen in Table 2. From 190 people, most
respondents are male, undergraduate, 19 - 28 years old and private employee.
Table 2 : Respondents’ demograpichs
|
Demographics |
Parameter |
Frequent |
Persentage
(%) |
|
Domicile |
Jakarta Barat |
13 |
6.84 |
|
Jakarta Pusat |
9 |
4.74 |
|
|
Jakarta Selatan |
19 |
10.00 |
|
|
Jakarta Timur |
29 |
15.26 |
|
|
Jakarta Utara |
8 |
4.21 |
|
|
Bekasi |
53 |
27.89 |
|
|
Bogor |
28 |
14.74 |
|
|
Depok |
16 |
8.42 |
|
|
Tangerang |
15 |
7.89 |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
109 |
57.37 |
|
Female |
81 |
42.63 |
|
|
Education |
Primary school |
26 |
13.68 |
|
Diploma D1/D2/D3/D4 |
15 |
7.89 |
|
|
Bachelore degree (S1) |
128 |
67.37 |
|
|
Master (S2) |
19 |
10.00 |
|
|
Doctor (S3) |
2 |
1.05 |
|
|
Age |
19 – 28 year |
121 |
63.68 |
|
29 - 38 year |
51 |
26.84 |
|
|
39 - 48 year |
9 |
4.74 |
|
|
49 - 58 year |
8 |
4.21 |
|
|
59 - 68 year |
1 |
0.53 |
|
|
Employment |
Privat |
108 |
56.84 |
|
BUMN |
24 |
12.63 |
|
|
Enterpreneur |
12 |
6.32 |
|
|
Government employee |
6 |
3.16 |
|
|
Student |
15 |
7.89 |
|
|
Housewife |
10 |
5.26 |
|
|
Etc. |
15 |
7.89 |
In the selection of
transportation mode, respondent rarely choose public transportation for daily
trevel. There are 80% of respondents owning motorcycles and 64% owning cars.
The results showed 69% of respondents admitted rarely use public transportation
in one month. While those who claim to often use public transportation in one
month only 31%.
For
experience in using public transport other than Transjakarta, 49% of
respondents have used city bus, 73% taxi, 62% city transport, 82% online
motorbike taxis, 70% Commuterline and other public transportation by 22%. Over
the last few months the transportation costs incurred by each respondent vary
greatly from the lowest of 50,000 rupiahs to the highest of 3,000,000 rupiah.
4.2.
Goodness of fit research model
The
structural equation of SEM output with LISREL 8.72 software can be seen in
Figure 7. Chi-square value = 354.70 with degrees of freedom (dF) = 305.
If chi-square is compared with degrees of freedom
then the ratio = 1.16. This ratio is still
acceptable because the ratio value is <3.00. Thus it can be concluded that
the model has a good fit to the data collected.
Figure
3: standardize loading factor value in the
framework of research model
The
next test is goodness of fit of model test which approach by criteria of SEM
using goodness of fit (GOF) cut-off. Table 3 shows that the RMSEA criterion
yields a value of 0.029 0.08 which means that the resulting model is
good fit.
Table
3: GOF of overall research model
|
Goodness-of-Fit |
Cut-off-Value |
Hasil |
keterangan |
|
p-value |
≥ 0.05 |
0.026 |
Poor Fit |
|
RMR (Root Mean Square Residual) |
≤ 0.05 atau ≤ 0.1 |
0.071 |
Good Fit |
|
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) |
≤ 0.08 |
0.029 |
Good Fit |
|
GFI (Goodness of Fit) |
≥ 0.90 |
0.96 |
Good Fit |
|
CFI (Comparative Fit Index) |
≥ 0.90 |
1 |
Good Fit |
|
Normed Fit Index (NFI) |
≥ 0.90 |
1 |
Good Fit |
|
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) |
≥ 0.90 |
0.95 |
Good Fit |
|
Relative Fit Index (RFI) |
≥ 0.90 |
1 |
Good Fit |
|
R-squared (R2) |
≥ 0.50 |
0.53 |
Good |
Other
goodness of fit criteria indicate by CFI, NFI, AGFI, and RFI value that >
0.90 which means the model is good fit. Likewise with the criteria of other
goodness of fit measurements RMR value 0.1, which means good fit model. This
shows that the several criteria resulted in the conclusion of goodness of fit
model which means the research model has been able to be used in doing the
assessment or measuring the observed variable, so that the hypothesis testing
theory can be done.
4.3.
Path coefficient
indicator analysis
Each
variable has several indicators that become the benchmark of the variable.
Table 4 shows the value of loading factor in personal norms variable. The
loading factor value of three indicators is more than 0.5, this means personal
norms variable described well by the three indicators. X3 has the largest
loading factor value where X3 is a reflection of one's personal principle to
use Transjakarta. It can be said that the personal principle of someone in
using Transjakarta is the biggest indicator in describing the variable of
personal norms.
Table 4: loading factor of personal norm
|
Variabel Indikator |
Item |
Loading
Factor |
|
X1 |
Guilty feeling |
0.87 |
|
X2 |
Responsibility |
0.62 |
|
X3 |
Personal principle |
1 |
Table 5 shows value of social influence loading factor.
Loading factor value of the five indicators is more than 0.5, this means the
three indicators describe the personal norms well. X4, X5, X6 has the greatest
loading factor value which indicates the effect that arises from the people who
are considered important in the life of respondents to use Transjakarta. So it
can be said that encouragement to use
Transjakarta from the people who are considered important or the people closest
is the greatest indicator in describing the variable of social influence.
Table 5: Loading factor of social influence
|
Variabel Indikator |
Item |
Loading
Factor |
|
X4 |
Support influence |
0.94 |
|
X5 |
Social encouragement |
0.83 |
|
X6 |
Family influence |
0.75 |
|
X7 |
Coworker influence |
0.54 |
|
X8 |
Friend influence |
0.52 |
Table 6 shows the value of environment impact loading
factor. Loading factor value of the five indicators is more than 0.5, this
means five indicators describe the environment impact well. Unlike X12 item,
its loading factor value is below 0.5, but the item statement is important that
states directly about congestion problems, so X12 is still used as one of the
indicators. X10 has the largest loading factor value which indicates the
depletion of energy source due to car or motorcycle usage. This means that the
problem of energy resource depletion is the most depicting environmental impact.
Tabel 6: Loading factor of environment
impact
|
Variabel
Indikator |
Item |
Loading Factor |
|
X9 |
Noise
pollution |
0.74 |
|
X10 |
Energy
crisis |
0.8 |
|
X11 |
Air
pollution |
0.62 |
|
X12 |
Road
congestion |
0.39 |
|
X13 |
Social
exclusion |
0.51 |
|
X14 |
Traffic
safety |
0.58 |
Table 7
shows the value of perceived quality loading factor. Seen on items X16, X20,
X21 have values less than 0.5, this means accessibility items, money_cost, and
courtesy less describe perceived quality variables. However, this item still
used because these three items are important indicators to describe the quality
of service, where these three items are also used in research of Sumaedi et al.
(2012), Jen and Hu (2003), Borhan et al. (2014) and several other studies. The
value of other loading factor is more than 0.5, this means that the indicator
represents the perceived quality well. X23 has the largest loading factor value
which indicates the schedule of Transjakarta operations. This means that
Transjakarta's operational schedule is the most important indicator in
describing perceived quality variables.
Tabel
7: Loading factor of perceived quality of Transjakarta
|
Variabel Indikator |
Item |
Loading
Factor |
|
X15 |
Comfort |
0.6 |
|
X16 |
Accessibilty |
0.42 |
|
X17 |
Speed |
0.72 |
|
X18 |
Punctuality |
0.72 |
|
X19 |
Security |
0.63 |
|
X20 |
Money_cost |
0.24 |
|
X21 |
Courtesy |
0.47 |
|
X22 |
Route |
0.69 |
|
X23 |
Schedule |
0.73 |
|
X24 |
Convinience |
0.71 |
Table 8 shows the value of
intention to use Transjakarta loading factor. Loading factor value of the three
indicators is more than 0.5, this means that the three indicators describe
intention to use Transjakarta well. The largest loading factor value is Y1
where this indicator does not include the element of time and the seriousness
of interest, so it is broader in general. So Y1 is most powerful item that represents
the intention to use Transjakarta variables.
Tabel 8: Loading factor of intention to use Transjakarta
|
Variabel Indikator |
Item |
Loading
Factor |
|
Y1 |
Intention1 |
0.95 |
|
Y2 |
Intention2 |
0.78 |
|
Y3 |
Intention3 |
0.84 |
4.4.
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis testing on research model using SEM, done by evaluating path
coefficient and t value of each variable in research conceptual model. The test
results of each path in two variables yielded t values that describe the
significance of two tested variables. Testing the hypothesis as presented in
Table 9.
Table 9: result of hypothesis testing
|
Hypothesis |
Path |
Path
Coefficient |
t value |
Results |
|
H1 |
PN → I |
0.25 |
4.60 |
Accepted |
|
H2 |
SI → I |
0.18 |
3.21 |
Accepted |
|
H3 |
EI → I |
-0.05 |
-1.31 |
Rejected |
|
H4 |
PQ → I |
0.44 |
6.89 |
Accepted |
|
R-squared
(R2) = 0.53 |
Good |
|||
*)
|t value| > 1.96 àSignificant
The relationship between
personal norms (PN) and intention to use Transjakarta (I) resulted in a
significant t-value so that hypothesis H1 which states that the personal norms
of consumers affect the intention to use public transport is acceptable. It can
be concluded that personal norms are one of the factors influencing user intention
in using Transjakarta. This is an indicator that basically the beliefs of
principle and moral responsibility for the impact of using private vehicles affect the public intention
in choosing Transjakarta as a daily transportation mode.
This
is in line with researches by Abrahamse et al. (2009), Fujii and Van (2009),
Doran and Larsen (2016), Zailani et al. (2016), and Borhan et al. (2014). In
Fuji and Van's research (2009) personal norms are described as moral concerns
associated with the respondent's belief in the environmental impact. These
findings illustrate that contributing to use the bus can reduce air pollution
and traffic congestion, and this can happen if the respondent understands that
there is a need for real action to switch using the bus.
In
the second hypothesis that states the social influence (SI) affects intention
to use Transjakarta (I) produce significant t-value. Thus the hypothesis H2 is
acceptable. It can be concluded that social influence is one of the factors
influencing user intention in using Transjakarta.
This
is in line with researches by Ng and Phuong's (2015) and Setiawan (2012). The
influence of family, coworkers, schoolmates, and people who become the social
environment of respondents has an important role in influencing the intention
of respondents in choosing the mode of transportation. Social influences can
also be attributed to the personal beliefs of the public.
It
needs special encouragement to general public and education in increasing the
belief about the importance and advantages of using Transjakarta. If public
beliefs in the use of buses increases, it can create more social influence.
However, unlike Fujii and Van (2009) and Zailani et al. (2016) who said that
social interaction associated with the use of buses does not reduce the public
intention to use the bus.
Furthermore,
it show in table 9, the relationship between environmental impact (EI) on
intention to use Transjakarta (I) yields t-value is not significant, so H3
which states that environment impact affecting
intention to use public transport can be rejected. It can be concluded that the
environmental impact caused by the use of private vehicles is not a factor
influencing user intention in choosing Transjakarta as transportation mode.
This
is in line with the findings of Ng and Phuong (2015) and Borhan et al. (2014).
Ng and Phuong (2015) say that the people of Hanoi are not motivated to use the
bus even though they live in an polluted environment caused by private
vehicles. While Borhan et al. (2014) in his research found that environmental
impact does not affect the behavioral intention directly, but indirectly
influence through attitude variables. In contrast to Fujii and Van (2009) who
conducted research in Ho Chi Minh City said that the environmental impact of
using private vehicles became a moral concern that affected the intention in
using buses significantly. The results of this study are likely to occur due to
lack of awareness and education of Jabodetabek people regarding the depletion
of energy sources, air pollution, congestion, and other environmental impacts
due to the use of private vehicles.
The
last hypothesis test is to test the relationship between perceived quality of
Transjakarta (PQ) against intention to use public transport (I). Table 9 shows
that the t-value is statistically significant, so the hypothesis H4 which
states that Perceived quality of public transport influences the intention to
use public transport is acceptable. Thus it can be concluded that consumer
perceptions of Transjakarta quality is one of the factors that influence
consumer interest in choosing Transjakarta as a transportation mode.
These
findings are in line with many previous studies such as Sumaedi et al. (2012),
Fujii and Van (2009), Jen and Hu (2003), Jen et al. (2010), and several other
studies. Consumer perceptions in transportation quality is the most significant
factor that affects the intention in using Transjakarta. This can be seen from
the highest t-value compared to other variables 6.89> 1.96. The better
public perception of Transjakarta service quality, the higher intention to use
it, the worse public perception on the quality of service, the lower intention
to use it. Jen and Hu (2003) also found that if user have a good perceptions of
service value, they will tend to re-use it.
Figure 4: Research model
framework with T-value
The value of
R-squared in this research model can be categorized well, it yields 0.53, this
means the intention to use Transjakarta variable is influenced by independent
latent variable by 53% in this research model. While 47% is influenced by other
independent variables.
5. CONCLUSION
PT
Transjakarta is currently continuing its development by adding fleets and
operational routes. This will be very effective if balanced with the increasing
intention of people to use Transjakarta. This study attempts to describe the
interests of private vehicle user behavior and analyze the factors that
influence their interest in using Transjakarta.
The
study found that respondents who own private vehicles rarely choose to use
public transport. The survey shows that the respondents' intention in using
Transjakarta buses is quite low. Intention to use Transjakarta is influenced by
several variables, that is personal norms, social influence, and perceived
quality public transport. Meanwhile, environment impact variable does not
affect intention to use public transport. Perceived quality is the most
variable that significantly influences intention to use public transport when
compared with other three variables. In perceived quality variables, item with
scores below 50 percent are related to speed, timeliness, operational schedule,
and number of routes from Transjakarta.
6. IMPLICATION AND RESEARCH LIMITATION
Through this research is expected to provide benefits and
images for stakeholders, especially the government and PT Transjakarta to be
one of the basic considerations in terms of increasing public intention in
using public transportation. To achieve this, the government as regulator and
PT Transjakarta as service provider can consider the findings of this research
by choosing a strategy to create urgency of public transportation usage, in
particular Transjakarta as a transportation mode choice for the community. The
managerial implication in this research is done by STP approach (segmentation,
targeting, positioning) and 4P (product, price, place, promotion).
Transjakarta
has a wide market segmentation, male or female, from the young to the old, the
economy up to the bottom, students or workers, and others. Related to this
research, it can be seen that private vehicle owners have weak intention
towards Transjakarta, then PT Transjakarta can do targeting to Jabodetabek
people who are private vehicle users as potential consumers. Furthermore, to
get the positioning in the minds of consumers, the government and PT Transjakarta
need to broadcast about Transjakarta’s
advantages and access to open information related to services Transjakarta.
Furthermore related to the findings in this study, more details are elaborated
with 4P on each variable.
The
Government and PT Transjakarta can make several efforts to increase public
awareness related to the use of Transjakarta, in terms of product, price,
place, and promotion. In terms of product, the government and PT Transjakarta
can socialize the urgency to switch using Transjakarta, as well as education
about Transjakarta services. Create an attractive bus display design and design
that puts the user's comfort. improve Transjakarta services especially in terms
of speed and timeliness, routes, and schedules. In relation to speed and
timeliness, PT Transjakarta must seek to increase the sterilization of
Transjakarta's special lanes from other vehicles that are not necessarily entering
the bus lanes, so the bus does not experience any obstacles. PT Transjakarta
can also add routes to expand operational coverage. While related to the
schedule, distance and span of time between buses with one another is shortened
so that the passenger waiting time is shorter. Besides that, the application of
smartphone-based can be apply to be able to infiltrate the location of the
nearest stop, and monitor the bus in realtime, and also passengers can provide
suggestions and reports of complaints through the application.
In
terms of price, the current implementation is quite affordable for all segment.
In relation to place, socialization can be done at hangouts such as malls,
cafes, restaurants, and places of daily activities such as schools,
universities and offices. Can also involve the campus environment and academic
community, as well as hobby community. Implementation in improving services is
done in all areas of Transjakarta operations. For smartphone applications
accessible on all platforms of any smartphone OS.
In
terms of promotion PT Transjakarta can give free electronic money to potential
user as promotion which is used as means of payment in using Transjakarta, and
promote the superiority of Transjakarta services at this time. Publicize public
service announcements, seminars and campaigns on Transjakarta through all
communication media. Promo via digital on smartphone can also be done to
maximize the dissemination of information. Giving trip discounts or even
purchasing vouchers for app users. Finally, inform about the change of services
in terms of improving the quality of service through all media.
This
study has limitation that need to be developed later in the future. This
research does not measure the performance factor of Transjakarta. As well as
busy routes, as well as hours that become operational busy times. In addition,
this study does not consider certain routes that buses are rare, making
Transjakarta users long to wait.
Suggestions
submitted by the authors for further research on public transportation, especially
Transjakarta is by considering a research model that enriches the literature so
the study can use variables more widely. Using a combination of grand theory
like Theory Planned Behavior (TPB) and Norm-activation Model (NAM) or other
grand theory as a whole. Incorporating other variables that affect intention to
use public transport such as personality traits and personal dilemma by Abraham
and Wirayudha (2015), travel time and satisfaction by Haryanto and Purnomo
(2016), and also compares the intention between private vehicle users and
public transport users such as research conducted by Osada et al. (2011).
REFERENCES
ABRAHAM, J.; WIRAYUDHA, M. S. (2015) Personality traits, sedentariness, and personal
dilemma as the dynamic predictors of intention to use public transportation in
greater Jakarta. Makara Hubs-Asia, v. 19, n. 2, p. 125-143. DOI 10.7454/mssh.v19i2.3481.
ABRAHAMSE, W.; STEG, L.; GIFFORD, R.;
VLEK, C. (2009) Factors influencing car use for commuting and the intention to
reduce it: A question of self-interest or morality?. Transportation Research Part F, v. 12, p. 317-324.
AJZEN, I.; FISHBEIN, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting
Social Behavior. New Jersey, US: Prentice-Hall.
AMBAK, K.; KASVAR, K. K.; DANIEL, B.
D.; PRASETIJO, J.; GHANI, A. R. A. (2016) Behavioral intention to use public
transport based on theory of planned behavior. MATEC Web of Conferences, n. 47(03008), p. 1-7. DOI: 10.1051/matecconf/20164703008.
BONNES, M.; BONAIUTO, M. (2002) Environmental Psychology: From Spatial Physical Environment to Sustainable Development,
Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York, US: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
CHOOCHARUKUL, K.; FUJII, S. (2007) Psychological factors
influencing behavioral intention of private car use in future work trips. Proceeding of The Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, v. 6, n. 2007, p. 1-12.
DORAN, R.; LARSEN, S. (2016)
The relative importance of social and personal norms in explaining intentions
to choose eco-friendly travel options. International
Journal of Tourism Research, v. 2016, n. 18, p. 159-166. DOI 10.1002/jtr.2042.
ERNST, J. P. (2005) Initiating bus rapid transit in Jakarta,
Indonesia. Journal of Transportation
Research Board, v. 3, n. 103, p. 20-26.
FUJII, S.; VAN, H. T. (2010) Psyschological determinants of the
intention to use the bus in Ho Chi Minh city. Journal of public Transportation, v. 12, n. 1, p. 97-110.
HAIR, J. F. J.; ANDERSON, R. E.; TATHAM, R. L.; BLACK, W. C. (2005)
Multivariate
Data Analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey, US: Prentice Hall.
HARYANTO; PURNOMO, H. (2016) The effect of moderating variable of
environment knowledge on the intention to re-use of public transportation. Proceeding of International Conference on
Climate Change. [Internet]. [Waktu dan tempat pertemuan tidak diketahui] Surakarta,
ID: JFPUNS, p . 52-58.
HAWKINS, D. I.; MOTHERSBAUGH, D. L. (2013) Consumer Behaviour: Building Marketing Strategy. New York, US:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
JEN, W.; HU, K. C. (2003) Aplication of perceived value model to
identify factors affecting passengers repurchase intentions on city bus: a case
of the Taipei metropolitan area. Transportation
Journal, v. 30, n. 3, p. 307-327.
JEN, W.; RUNGTING, T.; TIM, L. (2011) Managing passenger
behavioral intention: an integrate framework for service quality, satisfaction,
perceived, value and switching barriers. Transportation
Journal, v. 38, p. 321-342. DOI 10.1007/s11116-010-9306-9.
KOTLER, P.; ARMSTRONG, G. (2008) Prinsip-Prinsip Pemasaran. Ed ke-12. Jakarta, ID: Erlangga.
NG, P. Y.; PHUONG, P. T. (2015) From motor biking to public
transportation what matters in Hanoi?. World
Journal of Management, v. 6, n. 2, p. 1-15.
OSADA, C.; TANGPHAISANKUN, A.; OKAMURA, T.; NAKAMURA, F.; WANG, R.
(2011) Influences of commuters’ personality and preferences on travel intention
in developing countries: a case of Bangkok. Proceedings of The Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies [Internet]. [Waktu dan tempat pertemuan
tidak diketahui]. Yokohama, JP: JSTAGE, p. 370-381. [diunduh 2016 Aug 7].
Tersedia pada: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/easts/9/0/9_0_370/_pdf.
PETER, J. P.; OLSON, J. C. (2010) Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy.
9th ed. New York, US: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
RAHMATSYAH, D. (2011) Analisa
faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi minat pengguna produk baru (Studi Kasus: Uang
Elektronik Kartu Flazz BCA). Thesis. Jakarta, ID: Universitas Indonesia.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. (1977) Normative Influences on Altruism. In Berkowitz, L. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
New York, US: Academic Press.
SETIAWAN, R. (2012) Keyakinan-keyakinan utama mahasiswa pengguna mobil ke kampus. Thesis. Surabaya,
ID: Universitas Kristen Petra.
SUMAEDI, S.; BAKTI, I. G. M. Y.; YARMEN, M. (2012) The impact
study of public transport passengers behavioral intentions: the roles of
service quality. Perceived sacrifice, perceived value, and satisvaction (case
study: paratransit passengers in Jakarta, Indonesia). International Journal for Traffic and Transport Enginerring, v. 2,
n. 1, p. 83-97.
SUMAEDI, S.; YARMEN, M. (2015) The effect of moral norm on public
transport passengers’ behavioral intention (case study: public transport
passengers in Bogor, Indonesia). Transport
Problems, v. 10, n. 4, p. 15-23.
SUKWADI, R.; TEOFILUS, G. (2015) Behavioral intention penumpang
KRL commuter line Jabodetabek. Jurnal
Teknik Industri, v. 10, n. 2, p. 71-76.
TUNG, N. H.; KOJIMA, A.; KUBOTA, H. (2015) Impacts of travellers' social awareness on the intention of bus usage. International Association of Traffic and
Safety Sciences, v. 39, n. 3, p. 130-137. DOI 10.1016/j.iatssr.2015.03.001.
TUNG, N. H.; KUBOTA, H. (2015)
Psycological motivation of travelers’ behavior regarding the use of public
transportation. Research Report of
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, v. 41, n. 2, p. 12-23.